User Profile: AtlasIsShrugging

Member Since: December 18, 2012


  • December 10, 2013 at 11:38pm

    The sad reality is that most Republicans also want BIG Government only they think it can be run more efficiently or should be used for causes they favor. I know Paul Ryan is the fiscal darling of many conservatives but if you actually read his Roadmap for America, it essentially locks in federal spending at 23-24% of GDP and taxes at 19% of GDP through around 2050. Beyond that the deficit comes down as the baby boomer are all dead so Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are assumed to shrink. The fist surplus is assumed to occur in 2063! Levin is right, this whole thing is MIckey Mouse and shame on true conservatives if they allow Republican leaders to get away with it. The Sequester is the law of the land. Live with it!

  • August 10, 2013 at 11:49am

    ObamaCare is not “a” step toward a single-payer system, it is “the” step. If you want to remove the private sector completely from healthcare and have a government run system like the UK, then you develop a law/system that will create financial incentives for: 1. employers to stop providing health insurance (that’s why the employer penalties are so low), 2. insurance companies to raise premiums (no pre-existing conditions, expanded coverage) and 3. doctors to stop seeing patients (low Medicare reimbursement rates). History shows that the people will blame “greedy corporations” and “doctors” for this outcome rather than the politicians that created this mess and will demand government “do something”. Ultimately, ObamaCare is about “nudging” us toward “choosing” a government run system where we all will have equal access (except the ruling class which will have better service, doctors and facilities) to a healthcare system that, like all government run monopolies, will provide substandard care at a rather high cost to taxpayers.

    Responses (2) +
  • January 24, 2013 at 9:04pm

    I work in the utility industry and would like to provide some facts to this discussion. There are issues associated with smart meters but property access is not one of them. I don’t know the specific tariffs of this particular utility but in general when a person requests service they are granting the utility access to their property so the utility can install and maintain the equipment necessary to provide such service. The irony in this case is that the homeowners are objecting to workers being on their property yet that likely occurs every month when the meter is read. One advantage of a smart meter is that no one will ever step foot on their property again to read a meter because that will be done remotely. As to the RF issues, I can only assume that these people don’t own cell phones, wireless routers, iPads, etc. If RF is their concern they should be demonstrating at the local Apple Store. The biggest issues with smart meters are cost vs. benefits and cyber security. It has been demonstrated that they can be hacked into to turn off service or alter readings. Security has improved but like anything cyber, the hackers will take up the challenge. As to cost, the biggest driver of installations has been federal stimulus money because absent this subsidy, they would not be cost effective yet in most cases. My utility can’t make the numbers work to save customers money. A number of utilities who installed smart meters are struggling to justify the costs and lack of savin

    Responses (3) +
  • December 17, 2012 at 10:06pm

    As sad as the CT murders are, the reality is that according to the Center for Disease Control, almost 50% more children aged 0-14 are killed in vehicular accidents than by violent acts (which are not all guns). In fact, almost as many children drown every year as are killed by violent acts. Why no presidential and congressional outrage over these deaths? Are children who die in cars and swimming pools less important than those killed by guns? Shouldn’t we be doing more to protect children in cars so that this carnage doesn’t continue? Perhaps we should put speed limiters on cars and require full roll cages, 4 point safety harnesses and helmets. Aren’t our children worth it?

    The data is similar for all people. Almost 36,000 people die in auto accidents annually compared to less than 9,000 gun deaths. How many more people must die in cars before we put the appropriate limits on car ownership?